A barnstar for you!

edit
  The Template Barnstar
For fixing {{Television ratings graph}}, a template that had been significantly diminished for years without the Graph extension – your work returns the template to its full use again. RunningTiger123 (talk) 22:18, 28 December 2024 (UTC)Reply

List of The Fairly OddParents episodes

edit

Can you please rearrange the list by the order of broadcast? Rollbacker Geraldo Perez and Magical Golden Whip want it to be per broadcast company as aired, which I believe refers to broadcast order. BaldiBasicsFan (talk) 23:03, 1 January 2025 (UTC)Reply

@BaldiBasicsFan Is there a reason you are unable to do so yourself? I'm not sure how this is a complicated edit. -- Alex_21 TALK 23:46, 1 January 2025 (UTC)Reply
This show has 10 seasons total, so doing it on my own is difficult. BaldiBasicsFan (talk) 04:45, 2 January 2025 (UTC)Reply
As it would be for me. -- Alex_21 TALK 05:08, 2 January 2025 (UTC)Reply

Episode list template is broken

edit

Can you please fix it and see what the problem is? BaldiBasicsFan (talk) 22:40, 6 January 2025 (UTC)Reply

Ahecht has introduced new code; I am awaiting them to fix the issue they have introduced. -- Alex_21 TALK 22:40, 6 January 2025 (UTC)Reply
  Fixed --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE
)
23:07, 6 January 2025 (UTC)Reply
I noticed that the term "original air date" retired from the main table in favor of "original release date". Was it due to the rise of streaming? The viewer table was lucky enough to be kept though. BaldiBasicsFan (talk) 01:07, 7 January 2025 (UTC)Reply
@BaldiBasicsFan If we were going by airing vs. streaming, it would need to be "Original air date" and "Original streaming date". "Original release date" covers every format of release, and it now conforms with every other table we use, especially infoboxes. By viewer table, do you mean {{Television episode ratings}}? -- Alex_21 TALK 01:38, 7 January 2025 (UTC)Reply
Sorry to just randomly barge in, but I'd like to ask a question regarding this new episode table change. Would it still be technically correct as to keep the AltDate parameter listed as "[Blank] air date" if it syndicated on television, such as being out of its original country of origin? This is a common parameter used for anime that would still have to be defined as such, especially now because of streaming. GalaxyFighter55 (talk) 04:47, 7 January 2025 (UTC)Reply
@GalaxyFighter55 No worries! I don't see why not. For example, {{Television episode ratings}} is still using "Air date", as that template is designed for episodes that actually aired. "Original air date" or "UK air date" (for example) are still completely valid alternatives. We're not completely phasing out the word "air", just developing a sense of conformity across most articles. -- Alex_21 TALK 06:04, 7 January 2025 (UTC)Reply

Bot making unjustified edits and general incompetence to incorporate anonymous participation

edit

Regarding this, you can't make up a justification a posteriori about an edition made arbitrarily by a bot. You should explain why the bot made that edition and defend it on its own merit.

I'm honestly sick and tired of bots treating well-intentioned editions as vandalism. And more to the point, it's also rather disrespectful to undo a legitimate edition rather than correct it to keep the additional information. If someone takes some time to add information that isn't presented in the place or manner it should, the responsibility of the person that notices it is to either flag it for edition with the appropriate marker so someone else fixes it, or to fix it themselves.

This sort of incompetence and indifference just deters spontaneous participation, which is why Wikipedia has become more and more a collection of ghettos that monopolize content in their respective areas of interest, with editors even getting notifications whenever "their" content is modified.

2A02:AA13:8104:2D00:B44D:42A5:A8CB:E946 (talk) 12:42, 9 January 2025 (UTC)Reply

You mean your edit I reverted here, that another editor also reverted here? Look at the edit summary, I gave a reason. There was no salvagable additional information, thus by removing it, I did fix the article. Not sure what you mean by "bot" here; no automated edits were made. Ta. (Oh, and editors even getting notifications whenever "their" content is modified? That's not a thing.) -- Alex_21 TALK 23:08, 9 January 2025 (UTC)Reply

re: bludgeoning

edit

I am having a very difficult time with the user who we have both asked not to bludgeon.

The renaming discussion led me to think that perhaps we need further guidelines for the future, because as fires increase, we will run into this issue more often.Because I am relatively new to editing, I left a message in teahouse about future guidelines, here.

They began to bludgeon me there, too, accused me of bad behavior, and then specifically said something to me that I asked them not to and then accused me of casting aspersions.

What can I do? Does this rise to the level of ANI?

Thank you,

delecto

Delectopierre (talk) 03:30, 10 January 2025 (UTC)Reply

This is my first interaction with the editor in question, but if you believe you are being harassed, I strongly recommend you take it to ANI, yes. -- Alex_21 TALK 03:34, 10 January 2025 (UTC)Reply
Okay. Thank you for your reply.
I fear I am too sensitive to edit on wikipedia. Delectopierre (talk) 03:36, 10 January 2025 (UTC)Reply
I am super confused as to what they just did here: Talk:Palisades Fire (2025)#c-Jasper Deng-20250110034700-Requested move 9 January 2025
Did they close their own comment thread with a note that it was necessary? I've never seen that before, but again, am new. Delectopierre (talk) 03:50, 10 January 2025 (UTC)Reply
I believe they realized their back/forth arguing was more than what was needed, and hid the discussion, since it was unnecessary for the RM. Our oppositions still remain. -- Alex_21 TALK 03:54, 10 January 2025 (UTC)Reply
Got it. Thanks again! Delectopierre (talk) 04:04, 10 January 2025 (UTC)Reply